linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] irqchip/gic-v3-its: cap lpi_id

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 28 Aug 2018 20:08:04 +0800
From:   Jia He <hejianet@...il.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Jia He <jia.he@...-semitech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip/gic-v3-its: cap lpi_id_bits to reduce memory
 footprint



On 8/28/2018 4:58 PM, Marc Zyngier Wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 05:53:26 +0100,
> Jia He <hejianet@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> In commit fe8e93504ce8 ("irqchip/gic-v3-its: Use full range of LPIs"),
>> it removes the cap for lpi_id_bits. But it will cause more pointless
>> memory footprint.
>>
>> There is a WARN_ON when my QDF2400 server boots up (pagesize is 4k)
>> ============begin===============
> 
> [trimming not-so-useful trace]
> 
>> ============end============
>>
>> In its_alloc_lpi_tables, lpi_id_bits is 24 in QDF2400. Then
>> its_allocate_prop_table will try to allocate 16M(order 12 if
>> pagesize=4k). Thus it causes the WARN_ON.
>>
>> As said by Marc,
>> Capping lpi_id_bits at 16 (which is what we had before) is plenty,
>> will save a some memory, and gives some margin before we need to push
>> it up again.
>>
>> This patch re-caps the lpi_id_bits.
>>
>> Fixes: fe8e93504ce8 ("irqchip/gic-v3-its: Use full range of LPIs")
>> Signed-off-by: Jia He <jia.he@...-semitech.com>
>> Suggested-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
> 
> Thanks for doing this. Small problem with this patch:
> 
> The email comes from hejianet@...il.com, while the sign off is by
> jia.he@...-semitech.com. Your email should start with a:
> 
> 	From: Jia He <jia.he@...-semitech.com>
> 

Thanks for the pointing. And sorry for that problem.

---
Cheers,
Jia
> Other than that:
> 
> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
> 
> Thomas, would you mind picking this up so that it gets into the next
> convenient -rc?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	M. (/me goes back hiking...)
> 	
>